Editorial Notes

Not surprisingly, globalization and resistance are recurring themes in Studies in Political Economy. The articles and comments in this issue expand on these themes, linking them to both past debates and current conditions. Ellen Wall and Barbara Beardwood use the Salter and Salter article on the new infrastructure of globalization (SPE 53) as the starting point for their examination of the International Organization for Standardization and the development of international standards for environmental management (ISO 14000). Taking up Salter and Salter's argument about political economy's failure to investigate standards and standards-setting in these times, Wall and Beardwood focus on the agri-food sector in Canada. As is the case in other areas, international corporations have resisted national government regulation on food production, in part, by developing private standards that are not only more flexible and variably applied than government regulations, but also more subject to corporate control. And as is the case in other areas, these agreements are outside democratic processes while creating the appearance of responding to popular concerns and limiting popular resistance. Although food is essential to the survival of individuals and nations, it is now treated just like any other commodity in world trade, and is increasingly produced for transnational agri-business firms. As the authors point out, international exchange in food is hardly new, but there are new questions related to over-production, inequities in consumption, and environmental concerns that have contributed to standards development. The authors illustrate these developments with organic agriculture, an area where the emphasis on small-scale,locallybased and environmentally focused production is at risk. Here, and in the rest of agribusiness, corporate-designed standards have even become a marketing feature suggesting guarantees of safety for individuals and the environment. For small enterprises, the cost of


£ditorialNotes
N ot surprisingly, globalization and resistance are recurring themes in Studies in Political Economy. The articles and comments in this issue expand on these themes, linking them to both past debates and current conditions.
Ellen Wall and Barbara Beardwood use the Salter and Salter article on the new infrastructure of globalization (SPE 53) as the starting point for their examination of the International Organization for Standardization and the development of international standards for environmental management (ISO 14000). Taking up Salter and Salter's argument about political economy's failure to investigate standards and standards-setting in these times, Wall and Beardwood focus on the agri-food sector in Canada.
As is the case in other areas, international corporations have resisted national government regulation on food production, in part, by developing private standards that are not only more flexible and variably applied than government regulations, but also more subject to corporate control. And as is the case in other areas, these agreements are outside democratic processes while creating the appearance of responding to popular concerns and limiting popular resistance. Although food is essential to the survival of individuals and nations, it is now treated just like any other commodity in world trade, and is increasingly produced for transnational agri-business firms. As the authors point out, international exchange in food is hardly new, but there are new questions related to over-production, inequities in consumption, and environmental concerns that have contributed to standards development. The authors illustrate these developments with organic agriculture, an area where the emphasis on small-scale,locallybased and environmentally focused production is at risk. Here, and in the rest of agribusiness, corporate-designed standards have even become a marketing feature suggesting guarantees of safety for individuals and the environment. For small enterprises, the cost of

Studies in Political Economy 64, Spring 2001
conforming to such standards can be prohibitive, even though the protection offered to citizens may be far from ideal. The new infrastructure of global standards for food production and environmental management thus further promotes industrial-style rationalization and alters the role of the state, with important implications for the relationship between the state and civil society. The article ends, however, on a more optimistic note. Some standards, they say, have a positive impact. States can still recapture the regulatory initiative and can still be influenced by informed citizens. Time is short, though, and the danger is that soon nation states will no longer have the tools necessary to take action.
Martin Morris is even more optimistic about the possibilities for collective resistance. Morris is primarily concerned with the importance of the icon or image to corporate capital, and he sees this reliance as a source of weakness as well as strength. Beginning with an analysis of power contained in cultural commodification, he stresses the need for a dialectical approach in cultural and democratic politics. Iconic power, he argues, "can have the kind of alienation effect valued by critical theory as a spur to reflective political consciousness and a motivation to political involvement." But in order to use this iconic power against capitalist interests, it is necessary to articulate an "aesthetic of democracy" in terms of both theory and practice. A new kind of symbolic resistance involves revealing and publicizing the glaring contradictions behind corporate images. Such resistance needs to join with more established forms, such as workers' and other social movements, to undermine the pillars of global capital. The tools he promotes are both ancient and modern. His examples of resistance range from Adbusters to the "McLibel" court battle. Together, they support his case: symbolic resistance is not just a theoretical dream but a practice globally; not merely an add-on but a necessary part of the challenge to globalization.
Sharon Dale Stone offers another example of resistance, one that could well be described as symbolic. Drawing on her personal experience as an organizer of Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, she provides a case study of "heterosexual hegemony being transformed from below." Like Morris, she explores the dialectical nature of resistance. Unlike Morris, Stone's focus is more on how movement symbols may be absorbed within the hegemonic culture. Action by lesbians and gay men, Stone argues, has made homosexuality both visible and impossible to ignore. At the same time, however, "heterosexual hegemony has been reorganized and modified to accommodate this increasingly visible gay and lesbian presence in society." Stone is particularly interested in the mainstream media's role in this process. Through a careful analysis of press coverage of Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, she illustrates how this hegemony is maintained "through the use of routine journalistic practices." Yet the very coverage of the event, according to Stone, not only made lesbians and gays more visible; it also shifted the ground in ways that required the new visibility be taken into account. In the end, her study supports Morris's argument for symbolic resistance while drawing out another implication of dialectical analysis.
Issue 62 of SP E offered a range of views on "The Battle of Seattle," celebrating that history-making moment. Gerard Greenfield suggests that there are reasons to be cautious in our celebrations. He certainly agrees that the struggles against the WTO have had an impact. But very much in line with Stone's concern about hegemony being reorganized, and Wall and Beardwood's point that standards undermine democratic control, Greenfield provides examples of WTO attempts to restore legitimacy by embracing many of the issues critics claimed were missing from the WTO. In a statement that is bound to prompt responses, he argues that it is globalization itself that must be attacked, and attacked in an uncivil manner.
Like Greenfield, Sam Gindin is also cautious about reducing resistance to the art of the possible. Gindin develops a case for a structured, anti-capitalist movement. While it is not clear whether he wishes this movement to be civil or not, it is clear that he does not think it is time to create a new party. His proposals are at once theoretically based and grounded in specific, practical recommendations on how to combine what may seem like the contradictory notions of movement and structure. Like the others, Gindin sees alternatives to globalization and capitalist hegemony and discusses them in ways that help move debates about resistance in promising directions.